Don Macpherson: The Couillard government's 'speech police' proposal

Legislation on "hate speech" proposed this week by the Couillard government would make the Quebec human rights commission "speech police," with a possible chilling effect on freedom of speech, including political speech.

Don Macpherson

Updated: June 13, 2015

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard responds to Opposition questions on negotiations with nurses, Thursday, June 11, 2015 at the legislature in Quebec City. Jacques Boissinot / THE CANADIAN PRESS

The Quebec Liberals have been criticizing the Parti Québécois for confusing the issues of terrorism, religious accommodations and state religious neutrality.

Then, this week, they did the same thing, by addressing those issues in two bills and an “action plan,” all announced on the same day, and all obviously aimed at Muslims in particular.

Wednesday’s anti-“radicalization” package was the Liberals’ long-promised response to pressure from the opposition parties to Do Something — that is, introduce new legislation­­ — to address mostly imaginary problems, including hooded civil servants.

One of the bills would allow the Catholic crucifix to remain in its place of honour in the legislature of a “religiously neutral” state, as a historic symbol of “Quebec’s cultural heritage, in particular its religious cultural heritage.”

It would empower the commission to investigate complaints of hate speech without revealing the name of the complainant, initiate investigations on its own, and summon witnesses to appear, testify and produce evidence.

Someone then found guilty by the human rights tribunal of hate speech would be fined up to $20,000 for a repeat offence. In addition, the guilty party’s name would be published on a list kept by the commission.

And here’s the absurd part: The phrase “hate speech” appears in the title of the bill, and 30 more times in the explanatory notes and the text. But nowhere in its 17 pages and 43 sections does the bill say what hate speech is, or refer to any other legislation that does.

The federal Criminal Code defines “hate propaganda” as advocating or promoting genocide, inciting hatred against an identifiable group “likely to lead to a breach of the peace” or “wilfully” promoting hatred against such a group.

Since it’s a criminal offence, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And an accused can’t be convicted “if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.”

The Couillard government’s bill, however, leaves it entirely up to the commission and the tribunal to decide what hate speech is, and how much proof of it the commission needs to see.

And those groups include ones that share “political convictions” — that is, they include political parties and movements.

Two years ago, Mario Beaulieu, then the president of the sovereignist, anti-English Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, organized a campaign against “francophobia,” including even mild criticism of the PQ in the mainstream press.

He also insinuated that criticism in the English-language media in particular had incited the 2012 election-night shootings at the PQ victory rally that left one man dead and another wounded.

To get a conviction under the Criminal Code for counselling murder, or for hate propaganda, would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No similar requirement, however, would apply to a decision by the human rights tribunal to find someone guilty of hate speech.

It would be easy for supporters of a party or movement to harass critics by making them defend themselves against constant complaints to the human rights commission, the political motives of the complainants concealed along with their identities.

That, and the Kafkaesque punishment of fining someone and posting his or her name on a public list of hatemongers for committing an offence that isn’t defined in law, could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.